Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 1 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
MHCC010108172019
Presented on : 22-10-2019
Registered on : 04-11-2019
Decided on : 13-03-2025
Duration : 5 years, 4 months, 22 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
S. C. SUIT NO. 2831 OF 2019
EXHIBIT NO.21.
Manohar Tukaram Halde )
Age: 76 years, Occupation : Retired )
residing at 102, Sachin CHS Ltd., )
113, Model Town, J.P. Road, )
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 )...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Janta Seva Mandal, )
Registered under the Bombay )
Public Trust Act, 1950 )
having its office at Gandhinagar, )
Dainik Shivner Marg, Mumbai 13 )
2. Gangaram Vishnu Tawade, )
Age – Not Known )
Adult, Chairman & Trustee )
3. Narayan Balayya Jindam )
Adult, Vice Chairman, )
Age – Not Known )
4. Dashrath Balayya Jindam )
Adult, Gen. Secretary, )
Age – Not Known )
-- 1 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 2 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
5. Ramesh Narsayya Kokulla )
Adult, Office Head, )
Age – Not Known )
6. Prakash Gangaram Tawade, )
Adult, Treasurer, )
Age – Not Known )
Sr. Nos.2 to 6 are Members of )
The Managing Committee of )
Janta Seva Mandal, )
having their office at Gandhinagar )
Dainik Shivner Marg, Mumbai 13 )
7. Sunil S. Rane )
Adult, Trustee, )
Age – Not Known )
8. Amita Prashant Tawade )
Adult, Trustee, )
Age – Not Known )
9. Satyanarayan Narsayya Dasri )
Adult, Trustee, )
Age – Not Known )
Sr. Nos.7 to 9 are Trustees )
of Janta Seva Mandal )
having its office at Gandhinagar, )
Dainik Shivner Marg, Mumbai 13 )...Defendants
Shri S.S.Redekar, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Rajgopal Swami, Advocate for the defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI U.C.DESHMUKH.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 13th MARCH, 2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 13th March, 2025.)
This is suit to declare that Resolution No.4 passed in
-- 2 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 3 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
Annual General Meeting dated 30/05/2015 of defendant no.1 is illegal,
invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff and for injunction.
2. Facts of the case :
The plaintiff pleads that he is a Trustee of defendant no.1
Trust known as Janta Seva Mandal and he was appointed by an order
dated 20/11/2002 vide Change Report No. 6599/2000. He is
challenging Resolution No.4 dated 30/08/2015 allegedly passed by
members of defendant no.1 in their meeting dated 30/08/2015
whereby the plaintiff is removed as a Trustee of defendant no.1.
3. The plaintiff specifically pleads that he is acting as a
Trustee of defendant no.1 since the date of appointment. He came to
know about the Change Report No. 308/2016 filed by defendant no.1 in
the office of Deputy Charity Commissioner to delete his name vide
impugned resolution. Defendants had called Annual General Body
Meeting on 30/08/2015 vide their notice dated 17/08/2015 (Exh.11)
and vide Item No.4 the plaintiff is removed from the membership of
defendant no.1 on the ground of misconduct. The plaintiff was never
served with notice of the meeting. Therefore his removal vide impugned
resolution is illegal.
4. It is further specific case of the plaintiff that he is removed
from the membership vide impugned resolution as he has challenged
earlier Change Report No. 5553/2014. Hence this suit.
5. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of service at Exh.20 and
submitted that all defendants are served. However, vakalatnama at
Exh.5 is filed on behalf of defendant no.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8. The written
-- 3 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 4 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
statement is also filed by defendant no.3 in his personal capacity and on
behalf of defendant no.1 in the capacity of Vice Chairman. Thus, suit is
proceeded without written statement of rest of defendants and without
appearance of defendant no.4, 5, 7 and 9.
6. Vide written statement at Exh.6 it is case of defendant no.1
and 3 that the plaintiff is removed by defendant no.2 to 9 by following
due process. They admit that the plaintiff was Trustee of defendant no.1
and he has been removed from the post of Trustee vide impugned
resolution. It is their specific contention that vide notice dated
17/08/2015 (Exh.11) the meeting was called on 30/08/2015. The
plaintiff inspite of service of notice of meeting remained absent and
never participated in any meeting of the defendant no.1. Hence he is
removed. The Change Report No. 308/2016 is filed before Deputy
Charity Commissioner to delete the name of the plaintiff. Hence prayed
to dismiss the suit.
7. Considering rival stand taken by both parties, issues are
framed at Exh.7 casting burden upon the plaintiff to prove whether he
is illegally removed as a Trustee of defendant no.1 and other
consequential issues are also framed.
8. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.No.1 and filed
affidavit of evidence at Exh.8. He also files list of documents alongwith
list (Exh.9) which are as follows :
Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit No.
1 Copy of notice dated 17/08/2015 received from
office of Charity Commissioner.
Exh.11.
2 Copy of minutes of meeting dated 30/08/2015 Exh.12.
-- 4 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 5 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
received from office of Charity Commissioner.
3 Certified copy of Change Report No.308/16
received from office of Charity Commissioner.
Exh.13.
4 Objection Letter dated 25/10/2016. Exh.14.
5 Certified copy of Change Report No.5553/14. Exh.15.
9. The plaintiff closed his evidence vide pursis (Exh.16).
Thereafter defendant failed to lead evidence. Hence their right to lead
evidence is forfeited vide order dated 14/02/2023. Record shows that
affidavit of evidence of one Sunil Rane is filed at Exh.17 on behalf of
defendants. They have also filed document i.e. death certificate of late
Sunil Bhiwaji Rane (Defendant No.2) (Original Copy) alongwith list
Exh.18. Defendants had moved Notice of Motion No. 1270/2023 to set
aside ‘no evidence’ order dated 14/02/2023 which was allowed on
24/04/2023. Thereafter also defendants remained absent and did not
lead evidence. On 19/04/2024 learned advocate for the plaintiff made
submission that the witness of defendant is expired. Consequently
defendants right to lead evidence is again forfeited by order dated
03/10/2024. Thereafter defendants remained absent till to date.
10. Thus, suit is heard only on behalf of plaintiff. It is
submission on behalf of learned advocate for the plaintiff that there is
no dispute that the plaintiff was Trustee of defendant no.1 and he is
removed vide impugned resolution. Defendants failed to bring on
record that the plaintiff had notice of meeting dated 30/08/2015.
Hence impugned resolution is illegal. He also relies upon decision of
Honourable High Court in Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati
and others V/s. Sandip Ram Meghe and others [2016(5) Mh.L.J. 711]
wherein the Honourable High Court has observed that the suit
-- 5 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 6 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
challenging removal of plaintiff from life membership of Trust is
maintainable and bar under Section 50 r/w 51 of Maharashtra Public
Trust Act would not attract.
11. Considering submission of learned advocate for the
plaintiff, pleadings of both parties and evidence on record issues at
Exh.7 are hereinafter reproduced with findings thereupon :
SR.NO. ISSUES FINDINGS
1 Whether plaintiff proves that he was
illegally removed as trustee by defendant
No. 1 by resolution of Agenda No. 4 in
the meeting dt. 23.12.2015 ?
Yes.
2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to
declaration and injunction as prayed for ?
Yes.
3 What Order and Decree ? As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO ISSUE NO.1 AND 2 :
12. At the outset, it is apt to note that there is no dispute that
the plaintiff was Trustee of defendant no.1 and he was removed vide
impugned resolution. Defendants failed to lead evidence in support of
their case. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence at Exh.8 wherein
he reiterates his case vide the plaint. Nothing has been brought on
record during his cross-examination taken on behalf of defendants that
the plaintiff has acted in violation of Constitution of Trust, defendant
no.1. It is suggested to the plaintiff that he has challenged Change
Report No. 308/2016 before Deputy Charity Commissioner which is
filed by defendants in continuation of impugned resolution. It is also
suggested to the plaintiff that he was not attending meetings of the
-- 6 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 7 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
defendant no.1. However, defendants have not adduced any evidence
on record that the plaintiff was frequently absent for meeting held prior
to meeting dated 30/08/2015 in which impugned resolution was
passed.
13. It is further necessary to note that the plaintiff has filed
copy of notice dated 17/08/2015 (Exh.11) whereby Annual General
Meeting dated 30/08/2015 was called. The notice (Exh.11) explicits
that except the plaintiff rest of the trustees are served with it and thus
there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff was served with notice
of meeting dated 30/08/2015 in which impugned resolution is passed.
So far as Change Report No. 5553/2014 is concerned, it has no direct
bearing on the merits of this case. The plaintiff has relied upon said
Change Report to show that he is removed from the membership of the
defendant no.1 as he challenged Change Report No. 5553/2014. It is
also admitted fact that defendants have filed Change Report No.
308/2016 in continuation of impugned resolution and there is dispute
between the plaintiff and rest of the members of the defendant no.1
vide Change Report No. 5553/2014. In absence of proof on record that
the plaintiff was frequently absent and particularly for the meeting
dated 30/08/2015, it cannot be said that impugned resolution passed
by defendant no.1 is legal and valid.
14. The plaintiff has also filed Constitution and Rule of
defendant no.1 alongwith Change Report (Exh.13) at page no.64 of list
(Exh.9). The Constitution of trust defendant no.1 nowhere states that
an absence of trustee would be a ground to remove him from its
membership. Certainly it states that the Chairman would have authority
to remove any member for his misconduct. Defendants have come with
-- 7 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 8 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
specific case that the plaintiff was frequently absent for meeting held by
defendant no.1, hence he is removed. At the cost of repetition, it is apt
to note that no proof is brought on record on behalf of defendants to
show that the plaintiff was absent for meetings held by defendant no.1,
particularly meeting dated 30/08/2015 in which impugned resolution
was passed. Thus, it is evident that the impugned resolution passed by
defendants is against the principle of natural justice and rule of the
defendant no.1. Thus, it cannot stand in the eyes of law. The plaintiff
also prays to injunct the defendants from implementing the impugned
resolution. The fact that defendants have removed the plaintiff without
following due process of law and without adhearing its rules entitle the
plaintiff for relief of injunction. Accordingly issue no.1 and 2 are
answered.
15. The plaintiff succeeds to show that he is removed as
Trustee by defendant no.1 illegally which led the plaintiff to institute
the suit. Hence he is entitled to cost of the suit. Accordingly in answer
to issue no.3 following order is passed :
- ORDER -
The suit stands decreed with cost as under :
1. It is hereby declared that Resolution No.4 passed in Annual
General Meeting dated 30/08/2015 of defendant no.1 is illegal and not
binding upon the plaintiff and same stands set aside.
2. Defendants hereby restrained from acting or effecting the
impugned resolution permanently.
-- 8 of 9 --
S.C.Suit No. 2831/19. [ 9 ] Judgment (Exh.21).
3. The suit is disposed off.
(U.C.DESHMUKH)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Date : 13/03/2025. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 13/03/2025.
2. Transcribed on : 24/03/2025.
3. Placed for correction on : 24/03/2025.
4. Checked on : 25/03/2025.
5. Correction carried on : 25/03/2025.
6. Signed on : 25/03/2025.
7. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
25/03/2025. 5.39 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri U.C.Deshmukh.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 13/03/2025.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 25/03/2025.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 25/03/2025.
-- 9 of 9 --